"Instructional" or "Destructional"

[Golfcoach1]

Have you been more confounded than really helped by Golf Magazines' instructional articles.

Read our review of the October issue of Golf Magazine...Golf Instruction or Destruction Articles? | Lessons

[KrudlerAce]

Magazine Articles

Yes you have to be careful with what to believe when it comes to instruction articles. There are so many different points of view in this game. I would always encourage anyone to seek out more than one opinion on a particular part of the game and try to find a consistent answer before deciding it might be the way to go.

[Golfcoach1]

Re: "Instructional" or "Destructional"

There certainly are many and varied instructions about every facet of the game. Manuel de la Torre (see his book Understanding the Golf Swing) has an approach that is comprehensive. It covers every shot and every club. This way you have one consistent, integrated, effective concept for making the swing. With that as a basis, its easier to sift through instructional articles and separate out the overly complicated or wrong instruction.

[kbp]

Re: "Instructional" or "Destructional"

Manuel de la Torre's method is one. There are many other equally comprehensive methods out there.

I would describe most golf magazine articles as "useless" more than either instructive or destructive. Basically old saws or variations on old saws like "forward shaft lean", "shift the weight", "turn back and through", "hips lead", "stay behind the ball" etc. that are vague and incomplete, at best. I can't tell you how bad my original interpretation of "push off the back foot" hampered my progress years ago. (Okay, I'm changing my answer.....either useless OR destructive. )

"Demanding that golf instruction be kept simple does not make it simple --only incomplete and ineffective. Unless this is recognized, golf remains a vague, frustrating, infuriating form of exertion. After all, complexity is far more acceptable and workable than mystery is." - Homer Kelley

[srglassw]

Re: "Instructional" or "Destructional"

I am a long time subscriber to Golf Magazine and enjoy reading most of each issue. I do, however, try to avert my eyes from most of the instructional articles. I am very careful and selective of which, if any, I read in any given issue. I think of them like horoscopes -- how can one simple instruction apply to so many thousands of people? They have more potential to confuse me than to help me.

[Golfcoach1]

Re: "Instructional" or "Destructional"

I like the Homer Kelley quote, but I think it deserves context. While not knowing Kelley, having read his book I would conjecture that he is referring to the complexity of the action of making a golf swing. There are an astounding number of things that occur during a golf swing. Analogously, there are a remarkable number of things that happen when you make a right hand turn in a car. However, you do not need to know any of them. All you need to know is what to do to precipitate the action. The instruction to "turn the steering wheel" is simple.
In the golf swing, the best instruction is deduced from the simplest action necessary to precipate all of the many things that occur in a golf swing.
Bottom line: The golf swing is highly complex. The instruction does not need to be. The simpler the instruction that precipitates the correct action, the faster the player will learn and the more consistent they will play.

Manuel de la Torre's method is one. There are many other equally comprehensive methods out there.

I would describe most golf magazine articles as "useless" more than either instructive or destructive. Basically old saws or variations on old saws like "forward shaft lean", "shift the weight", "turn back and through", "hips lead", "stay behind the ball" etc. that are vague and incomplete, at best. I can't tell you how bad my original interpretation of "push off the back foot" hampered my progress years ago. (Okay, I'm changing my answer.....either useless OR destructive. )

"Demanding that golf instruction be kept simple does not make it simple --only incomplete and ineffective. Unless this is recognized, golf remains a vague, frustrating, infuriating form of exertion. After all, complexity is far more acceptable and workable than mystery is." - Homer Kelley

[kbp]

Re: "Instructional" or "Destructional"

Full disclosure. I am not an advocate for Homer Kelly nor for TGM. Homer was not an instructor. He was an observer, a recorder, and an analyst..... not a teacher. However, the quote does say "golf instruction" not "golf swing".

I agree that the simplest instruction that precipitates the correct action is best. However, we may not agree on what the correct action is, or more specifically, is the action "correct" enough to maximize the player’s potential. Most instructors are willing to delete so many of the keys to power, accuracy and consistency for the sake of simplicity. The player is left with a grooved stroke that is insufficient to play to their potential and worse, they are completely unable to fix themselves on the course or on the range because they have so little real knowledge.

IMO, of course.

[Golfcoach1]

Re: "Instructional" or "Destructional"

It may be easier than you think to reach consensus on the matter of "correct action". I would define the correct action as one that results in 1) the club being swung in the direction of the target, 2) the clubface arriving perpendicular to the target line at impact, 3) the ball is contacted by the center of the clubface, and 4) the club has enough speed so that the energy it transfers to the ball is adequate for the ball to reach its target.

Regarding simplicity, I can't imagine a golf instructor pursuing simplicity devoid of "power, accuracy, and consistency". I don't know what that instructor would be wanting the student to achieve. Simplicity is only valuable if it results and an effective golf swing (i.e. power, accuracy,and consistency).

Finally as pertains to "fixing themselves", I believe the simpler the players concept of the swing, the easier it is for them to get back in the groove when they stray.

[golfshooter]

Re: "Instructional" or "Destructional"

I to have suffered from the push off the back leg. There are three things that have transformed my game and I didn't learn them off a pro. 1. set your shoulders parallel to the slope or lie and keep them there through the stroke, no lunging. 2. keep your head still until coming up out of the stroke. 3. rotate around the spine, that posture must be maintained through out the swing back and forth. These three simple rules have really made a difference to my consistency.

[Golfcoach1]

Re: "Instructional" or "Destructional"

From reading your post, I can understand how you found each of those three points helpful. I'll offer an alternative to number 2. Attempting to keep our head still can produce rigidity and an unnatural stifness that can keep you from swinging as well as possible. Instead, try taking some practice swings attempting to keep your balance. Observe the weight distribution in your feet and makes swings with that distribution maintained till the club passes address. After that, you should allow the forward momentum of the club to pull you forward, shifting most of your weight to your front foot.

Good Golf, Ed

[golfshooter]

Re: "Instructional" or "Destructional"

Ahhh, that may explain some of my occasional sh*nks. From my experience it is usually caused by out of time weight shift and would explain why I get a run of them sometimes. I would be keeping my head as ridged ,as you call it, even more so in trying to fix it. Come out the next day more relaxed and don't see them again for ages. Thanks for that.

[kbp]

Re: "Instructional" or "Destructional"

It may be easier than you think to reach consensus on the matter of "correct action". I would define the correct action as one that results in 1) the club being swung in the direction of the target, 2) the clubface arriving perpendicular to the target line at impact, 3) the ball is contacted by the center of the clubface, and 4) the club has enough speed so that the energy it transfers to the ball is adequate for the ball to reach its target.

Regarding simplicity, I can't imagine a golf instructor pursuing simplicity devoid of "power, accuracy, and consistency". I don't know what that instructor would be wanting the student to achieve. Simplicity is only valuable if it results and an effective golf swing (i.e. power, accuracy,and consistency).

Finally as pertains to "fixing themselves", I believe the simpler the players concept of the swing, the easier it is for them to get back in the groove when they stray.

I would consider an action without weight shift, as advocated in your other post, as a simplification sacrificing potential power for accuracy and consisting. Stack and tilt, I think, is another popular method that sacrifices power and accuracy for consistency. (FWIW, I think "conventional" instruction on "weight shift" is out to lunch, so we have that in common. )

I would also expect more from #3. IMO, the correct action will allow the player to return the clubface either square, open or closed, on any path, lofted or delofted, on demand, for the shot they want to hit. "Always square to the target "methods are a sacrifice in accuracy (shot making) for the sake of consistency. Everyone should know how to hit at least a short fade or hook when they’re dead behind a tree or to punch out of the woods.